# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 20

- 60413 Summary Calendar

**Jessica Roxana Gonzalez**

**- Gutierrez,** 

Petitioner **,**

versus
**Merrick Garland ,**  U.S. Attorney General **,** Respondent

**.**

Petition for Review of the Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Agency No. A208

- 762

- 891

Before **Jolly, Willett,** and **Engelhardt,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** * Jessica Roxana Gonzalez

- Gutierrez is a native and citizen of El Salvador . She petitions us to review the Board of Immigration Appeals ’ ( **BIA** ) decision that dismiss ed her appeal from the Immigration Judge’s ( **IJ** )

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED November 16, 2021 Lyle W. C ayce Clerk Case: 20-60413 Document: 00516096097 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/16/2021No. 20

- 60413

2 denial of her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ( **CAT** ).
Gonzalez

- Gutierrez alleges errors by both the **IJ** and the **BI A** 

. As for the IJ, Gonzalez

- Gutierrez argues that (1) the IJ misinterpret ed the concept of government acquiescence in denying her **CAT** claim , and (2) her due

- process rights were violated when parts of her removal

- hearing

testimony transcript were marked as “indiscernible

. ” Gonzalez

- Gutierrez has not exhausted these claims, though, because she did not raise them before the **BIA**

. See Vazquez v. Sessions , 885 F.3d 862, 868 (5th Cir. 2018) ; Omari v. Holder , 562 F.3d 314, 318

– 19 (5th Cir. 2009) ; Roy v. Ashcroft , 389 F.3d 132, 137 (5th Cir. 2004) (per curiam)

. Likewise, Gonzalez

- Gutierrez has not exhausted her claim that the **BIA** erred in d eeming her **CAT** claim abandoned . She neither substantively appeal ed it in her brief to the **BIA** nor moved the **BIA** to either reopen or reconsider its determination. See Vazquez , 885 F.3d at 868 ; Claudio v. Holder , 601 F.3d 316, 319 (5th Cir. 2010)

. We therefore lack jurisdiction to review these claims

. See Vazquez , 885 F.3d at 868; Wang v. Ashcroft , 260 F.3d 448, 452 (5th Cir. 2001)

. As for the **BIA** , Gonzalez

- Gutierrez contends the **BI A**  erred in (1) affirming the **IJ** ’s decision that her proposed particu lar social group ( **PSG** )

— “Salvadoran women who fear gender based violence and delinquency in their home country”

— was not cognizable , (2) holding that she failed to establish past persecution and a well

- founded fear of future persecution on account of her **PSG** , and (3) affirming the **IJ** ’s denial of withholding of removal. We review factual findings under the substantial

evidence standard and legal questions de novo. Orellana

- Monson v. Holder , 685 F. 3d 511, 517

– 18 (5th Cir. 2012). Under the substantial

- evidence standard, we may not reverse the **BIA** ’s factual findings unless “the evidence was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could conclude Case: 20-60413 Document: 00516096097 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/16/2021No. 20

- 60413

3 against it.” Wang v. Holder , 569 F.3d 531, 537 (5th C ir. 2009). Those factual findings include the conclusion that an alien is not eligible for asylum or withholding of removal

. Chen v. Gonzales , 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006)

. Applying this standard, we disagree with Gonzalez

- Gutierrez that the **BIA** err ed in reviewing her case. Her proposed **PSG** lacks particularity . I t could potentially include every woman in El Salvador, without any limitations or distinguishing factors

. See Orellana

- Monson , 685 F.3d at 519. Accordingly, Gonzalez

- Gutierrez has failed to show that her proposed **PSG** is more than a “catch all” for persons fearing persecution. Id. at 518

– 19. Additionally, t he **BIA** properly affirmed the **IJ** ’s decision that Gonzalez

Gutierrez was not persecuted

. Cf. Tesfamichael v. Gonzales , 469 F.3d 109, 116 (5th Cir. 2006) (requiring “extreme conduct” beyond isolated incidents of “discrimination”, “harassment”, or “threats”) ; Eduard v. Ashcroft , 379 F.3d 182, 188 (5th Cir. 2004) (same)

. S ubstantial evidence similarly supports tha t Gonzalez

- Gutierrez was victimized for personal or general

- criminal
reasons, and not because of a protected ground. See Thuri v. Ashcroft , 380 F.3d 788, 790

– 93 (5th Cir. 2004) (per curiam)

. S ubstantial evidence further supports that Gonzalez

- Gutierrez failed to show a well

- founded fear of future persecution on account of a protected ground

. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(2)(i) ; Cantarero

- Lagos v. Barr , 924 F.3d 145, 150 (5th Cir. 2019). B ecause substantial evidence supports the **BIA** ’s deter mination that Gonzalez

- Gutierrez failed to show that she was eligible for asylum, she necessarily has also failed to show that she is eligible for withholding of removal. See Efe v. Ashcroft , 293 F.3d 899, 906 (5th Cir. 2002) (quorum)

. Accordingly, the petition for review is **DISMISSED IN PART** and **DENIED IN PART**

. Case: 20-60413 Document: 00516096097 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/16/2021